The group that poses the biggest threat to civil order in the US are the elites who are looting the country as society collapses around them.
And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? If the FBI was monitoring libertarian party members and events that would be kosher with you too, or is it just hippies that deserve the police state treatment?
I am not a libertarian. I am a liberal. I broadly support the goals of the Occupy movement. I also support the principles of this action by the FBI (though almost certainly not all of the details).
Why?
Among other things, it is the job of the FBI to monitor situations that could turn into problems. The Occupy movement, as legitimate as it is, has the potential to attract easily radicalized people. These people could easily coalesce into a radical fringe whose methods would be counter to both the desires of both the majority of Occupy and the legitimate goals of law enforcement. (See the Weathermen for an example of such a group that arose out of broad protests during the 60s.)
If law enforcement can stay abreast of the Occupy movement, and hopefully form connections between their officers and various well connected people, they have the opportunity to better monitor and head off this radical fringe. That is a legitimate goal for law enforcement, and benefits the Occupy movement as well.
The details where I would disagree with this action are any and all where law enforcement seeks to block the rights of reasonable people to political protest. Given what law enforcement is like, I am certain that this has happened to some extent. However my impression is that on the whole the focus really has been to be prepared for illegitimate action, and not to block legitimate protest. Therefore my default position is cautious support of this law enforcement action, even though I recognize the possibility of abuse.
Who decides what's illegitimate? Is it anything the police says like sitting down at the wrong place, wearing a mask not to be identified or just being part of something considered illegitimate?
It's uncommon even in totalitarian countries that the government won't have some justification for its behavior. If people in Quebec would have respected bill 78, maybe there wouldn't have been a change in government there.
In the end, legitimacy is decided by the country as a whole. In a well-working country, laws, courts, and police are a reasonable proxy for that.
Incidentally I had not read about bill 78. The anti-protest portions of the bill I am strongly against. But the tuition hikes that were being protested, well, I was paying more tuition 20 years ago in British Columbia, Canada than Quebec students would have paid. I have little sympathy with the student protests about tuition. Furthermore I am personally of the political belief that the culture of widespread entitlement in Quebec is among the reasons that it is much worse off economically than the rest of the country.
Note, this is coming from someone who, while I was in Canada, was politically fairly far to the left. And Canada is fairly far to the left of the United States. This is not the time or place to debate it, but in the case of Quebec my opinions are shaped in part by the separatist movement there. I grew up with friends whose families left Quebec due to Bill 101, which is likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America in my lifetime. Before objecting, go read it, and educate yourself on why the Bank of Montreal is now headquartered in Toronto, and what economic impacts that has had on Montreal.
It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to the the widespread belief in Quebec during the early 90s that they had the right to take not only their marbles, but all of the marbles that they had been given while abandoning all of the debts that they had run up, on a straight majority vote. (One of those marbles being a lot of land with good hydroelectric power, built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec.) Yes, I am sure that you see things differently and think that Quebec was entitled to do that. But explain to me why the natives were not entitled to leave Quebec, and find an argument that cannot be turned around and be seen by a third party as an argument that Quebec not be allowed to leave Canada.
French Quebecer here. I've been trying to learn more about why the perception from English Canada is the way it is and posts like yours help a lot.
likely the most racist law passed anywhere in North America
In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians?
It didn't help that the value of my Canadian sourced scholarship dropped sharply due to
I don't follow - how did that happen?
built on land given under the condition that they take good care of the natives, with natives who voted 99.7% that if Quebec left Canada, they would leave Quebec
Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?
I feel btilly's comment contained more venom than it ought to have, but it does give you some idea of a common viewpoint in English Canada.
>In what ways? Do you feel that it was specifically intended to kick out English Canadians?
The law itself is probably not so bad, but the perception has been that it specifically targets English speaking Quebecois. There have certainly been plenty of news stories over the years about inappropriate and over zealous enforcement. For example, a store owner receiving a fine for a sign saying "leave the air conditioner plugged in" without a French translation. Now, I don't know, he probably won in court, but the fact that he even had to go to court is a travesty.
>I don't follow - how did that happen?
The uncertainty surrounding the referendum in 1995 caused a significant fall in the value of the Canadian dollar.
>Both of those facts are new to me. Do you have any source/link? Which territory and treaty are you referring to?
I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here, but for an idea of what inspired this bit of the rant read this short section on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#First_N..., keeping in mind that Jacques Parizeau insisted that Quebec could not be partitioned, "the borders are protected by international law," while at the same time insisting that Quebec could unilaterally leave Canada.
Until they were forced to change it because of the 1982 Constitution, anglophone children of anglophone parents who had moved to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada were forced to send their children to French only schools. This was in fact the primary reason that the families of children who I met in school gave for having recently left Quebec. (Even after the new Constitution, people who had moved to Quebec from other countries were still impacted.)
I think btilly's grasp of history is a bit weak here...
I misremembered the statistics, but not the gist of the facts. As I pointed out in a separate response, the rest of the history that I'm digging up is that 2/3 of the current boundaries of Quebec were given to it post-Confederation. And the bills which gave those to Quebec came with both rights and responsibilities. With the clear message that if Quebec failed of its responsibilities, it could not retain its rights.
Given that historical fact, Jacques Parizeau's proclamation that Quebec is unpartitionable was incredibly one-sided. And I have no clue why so many in Quebec both did, and continue to, accept that position as being undisputedly correct.
Bill 101 was clearly intended to make Quebec unpleasant for anglophones, and the fact that within several years something like 1/3 of all anglophones living in Quebec had left Quebec is strong evidence that it succeeded in that goal. These were not people who particularly wanted to leave. These were people who lived in Quebec, had jobs, had houses. Yet they abandoned those, and the ones that I knew were very clear that it was entirely because of Bill 101. You can believe what you like about the bill - the level of "voluntary self-deportation" demonstrates a racist effect. And without it there would have been demographically no possibility of a close separation vote in the mid-90s.
To give a random story, I had a friend in high school whose mother was hired as an English teacher at a private school to replace the one who had left the year earlier due to bill 101. The family had just emigrated from Australia for this job. They were shocked upon arriving to find out that their son was not allowed to be a student in the school that his mother taught at, even though they were willing to pay, but would have to take French instruction due to his parents not being able to demonstrate that they had been instructed in English in Quebec. Of course, having grown up in Australia, he did not know any French. As soon as the family figured out a way to afford leaving Quebec, they moved to British Columbia.
On my scholarship, I was living on an NSERC out of country to the USA. In 1991 a Canadian dollar was worth 0.87281 US. As secession stirred in Quebec, the Canadian currency dropped like a rock, reaching 0.72863 in 1995. As a starving grad student, you can be certain that I counted every dollar and noticed every drop. And every time the news stories were full of Quebec separatism being the cause of the continuing decline. (As soon as the vote failed, the currency stabilized then began to creep up. But not fast enough to for me to benefit.)
About the natives, the tribes involved were the Cree and the Innuit. Google immediately turned up http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/oct/22/tribes-want-no-... which verifies that the vote happened, but does not give results. (However it does state the results to be a foregone conclusion.) As for the treaty, you misunderstand. I am not talking about a treaty. I am referring to the terms of the Quebec Boundaries Extensions Acts of 1898 and 1912 where large amounts of land obtained from Hudson's Bay in 1871 became part of Quebec. The grant of land was far from unconditional, and constitutes about 2/3 of the present borders of Quebec.
The specific term that I am thinking of is: (e) That the trusteeship of the Indians in the said territory, and the
management of any lands now or hereafter reserved for their use, shall
remain in the Government of Canada subject to the control of Parliament. Which indicates to me that if Quebec were to leave Canada, it would not have a strong claim to the land that the Cree and Inuit lived on. (Particularly since the people living there virtually unanimously did not want to be part of an independent Quebec.) Of course that land is about half the province, and is the location of hydroelectric power plants that are very important for the province's finances.
Over the years I've had a number of friends from Quebec. Invariably my views on Quebec separatism came as a surprise - they'd never seen it presented from any point of view but their own.
The courts, that's why we have them. You might also like to recall that at least some of the occupy movements involved violent and wholly unecessary destruction of private property, eg Occupy Oakland. Sure, that was only a few fringe anarchists who had attached themselves to the ideologically pure movement, but that's little different from the 'few bad apples' excuse that is sometimes advanced to forestall criticism of police misbehavior.
You are absolutely right about it being the responsibility of the courts. But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.
In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence. This is one of the central paradoxes of policing. It is the job of the police to see that the peace is kept. Surprisingly often, preemptive force is an ineffective means to that end.
Incidentally the phrase "a few bad apples" originally meant the opposite of what it means now. Originally it was a recognition that a single bad apple would spoil the whole barrel, so if you found a few bad apples your default assumption was that the whole barrel was at risk. It, therefore, was an argument that if you find some bad apples, there is cause for increased scrutiny.
But when government, police and courts are all lined up against the people, then that which was formerly unthinkable - such as armed revolt - should become seriously considered options. When, and only when.
I've visited several totalitarian countries. We have a hell of a long way to go before I take such suggestions seriously in the context of the US.
In the case of Occupy Oakland, it is worth noting that the Oakland police were the first to escalate to violence.
I live in Oakland and paid careful attention to the Occupy protests. The local anarchists did not attack the police first, but they were perfectly happy to trash buildings from coffee shops to convenience stores in furtherance of their disbelief in the idea of private property. Earlier last year, similarly minded people were perfectly happy to protest the shooting by police of a wanted criminal who produced a gun while running away from a transit fare inspector by trashing a subway station in San Francisco and smashing the ticket and fare machines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2P5LIrFDXc
The person who got shot was on the run from Washington state, where he had raped and killed his ex-girlfriend. When challenged by a fare inspector he ran from the bus, produced and brandished a gun, then tripped and shot himself in the neck. The resulting protests, though ostensibly about police brutality (non-existent in this case), were organized by the same people who oppose any kind of transit fare increase ever and are continually trying to gin up civil disobedience actions with slogans such as 'can't pay - won't pay.'
I'm more familiar with their ideology than I want to be because they make a habit of plastering my neighborhood in Oakland with their 'revolutionary' agit-prop (using plaster makes them almost impossible to remove and creates an eyesore as the paper rots away over a period of a year or so). They also like to plaster and spray-paint their views on top of local community art projects like murals, on the theory that their revolutionary messages are 'more important.'
Fuck these people. This isn't armed revolt against a just cause, it's malicious vandalism.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Occupy_Oakland it was the use of tear gas and beanbag rounds on Oct 25. This resulted in Scott Olsen (ex-marine and Iraq veteran) suffering a skull fracture and needing to be hospitalized.
That timeline gives Nov 2 as the first truly violent act by protestors, namely the setting of a police barricade on fire while the police were attacking the protestors with tear gas, etc. (I'm not counting the tearing up of deposit slips on Oct 22 as violent - and the protestors cleaned up the mess that they caused on that occasion.)
...whose sovereignty is what backs a constitution, which is what courts derive their authority from. Devoid of institutions, 'the people' are no more than a mob, which lacks anything more than a pretense of moral authority.
From the point of view of the minority, that's still all "the State" is: a mob. "majority rule" is just a euphemism for "tyranny of the majority" or "mob rule". And even a representative republic system still can't guarantee that the majority don't violate the rights of the minority.
Let's say you were an innocent man, wrongly convicted of murder by a jury. Would you feel that the State truly was justified in imprisoning you for life or executing you? I mean, the "institution" of a court and judge and a jury decided to do it, so does that make it OK?
The Occupy movement may have been nominally non-violent, but in practice many people involved with it also engaged in violent property damage, and not just towards the property of banks or other ideological targets; there was also abundant violent and tinpot revolutionary rhetoric to go around.
I have zero sympathy for such tactics, whether practiced by Occupy or the Tea Party; the people who manipulate populist sentiment for political advantage are irresponsible jerks. And for those who suggest that this represents some sort of new totalitarianism, I invite you to go read the Wikipedia article on the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791.
You can be your ass that the FBI was monitoring the tea party movement. Especially the bits of it that kept reminding everyone that the second amendment was meant to keep the government afraid of the citizens.
Everyone is non-violent until they're not and there is a rational trade-off between civil liberty and security (the risk/reward balance ranges from the U.S. to Singapore to Stalin's Russia). There is a proper way to do this - peeking into suspects' lives for suspicious activity, and if nothing is found, to hide away the file. While most protesters in Benghazi weren't bad it created a predictably attractive environment for violence-biased individuals.
As a personal aside and a New Yorker, I've been concerned by the sometimes violent proclamations of OWS protesters (as well as thoroughly pleased by the coherence of a diminishing minority's arguments). I would be dismayed to the point of taking action if NYPD CT weren't monitoring the group (once an individual leaves the group the civil liberties side weighs in higher as a temporary phenomenon indicating an elevated risk profile has passed).
What specific civil liberties were being violated, that were not known before these documents were revealed by the FOIA request? I don't even really see what the trade-off is here.
And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens?
As a libertarian myself, I am definitely not completely comfortable with this, but I can see where @DanielBMarkham is coming from. From a strict libertarian perspective, if they're not initiating force against anyone, they aren't doing anything really wrong. Passive monitoring may be distasteful (and I worry about the eventual repercussions of it), but it's not necessarily something a libertarian would find to be inherently wrong.
"support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent"
What's wrong with "monitoring"? It sounds bad, but from the article, it seems like they are just keeping their eyes on a potential problem. Given that OWS was a public protest movement, monitoring it is hardly an unreasonable search.
So, does this article offer new evidence that some unreasonable searches, seizures, or harassment took place? If not, then I don't see what it has to offer.
And no, I don't care whether they "monitor" the ELF, or the Tea Party, or the libertarian party rallies, or Ron Paul, or Richard Stallman; except to the extent it wastes the FBI's time (which we all pay for).
Monitoring many people is of course cause for concern, but it has little to do with what the article was talking about. The article was talking about the monitoring of specific, fairly small groups of people.
I would object to any attempt at widespread monitoring of public spaces by the government (though I don't see an obvious constitutional problem there). I don't object to using their existing monitoring capabilities to focus on certain groups.
And how exactly do you call yourself a "libertarian" and then support a national intelligence agency monitoring the non-violent political activities of private citizens? If the FBI was monitoring libertarian party members and events that would be kosher with you too, or is it just hippies that deserve the police state treatment?